Stigma against Communism?

[FredLC]

Taking off from your own point, communism does not expect people to give out of compassion or care, but out of coercion and force. It would work in something like a kibbutz or a village because its a 'place where everybody knows your name..' Can this system work in a country with a Government, established hierarchies, history of conflict and violence? No, because you will not give up what you have earned when you can discern no benefit for yourself. Taxation is different because you see the place (police, roads, army, etc.) where it goes and as long as you are not being made to part with too much of your money, you will still pay. If you are convinced that your money is being thoroughly pissed away you either stop paying or try to make sure it is being used properly.

Hehehe. Allhailindia, I don't think this is very correct. In theory, there would not be "stealing"; what would be is just the extinction of the concept of "private property". This channeling of resources could, theoretically, be "made sure to be used properly", and the political circunstances that prevented it are not inherent of the model. I guess we could say that communism is just a rather large form of tributation, to keep with your example.

The problem of implementation is very real, but it is practical, not theoretical.

 

[Virote_Considon]

...the flag of racist right wingers that wear it on their trucks,...

May I ask what is wrong with right wingers? We're (the right) not all racist neo-nazis, you know. Just like the left, the right is a vast spectrum with the far-right racist people you steriotype us as, to Mr. Centre-right, who wants nothing more than a nice, simple Democracey to live in.

 

[Atropos]

My point, exactly. Bear in ind that I’m not defending communism here – I’m just disproving a false “pro-capitalist” argument. I think capitalism has better, if less emphatic, qualities to defend itself from critique, than some supposed alignement with the human nature, that simply does not exist.

I agree, on the whole, that the "human nature" argument is not the best argument for capitalism.

Oh, I have read “The Leviathan” – a rather insightful book, though surpassed by the thoughts of John Locke (remember the other debate we held?) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And only by this surpassing your description is true – in the Hobbesian archetype, “society must bear the prince it chose”, and coercion in whatever degree is acceptable in the name of common god. The idea that the prince exists in fuction of the people, and not the other way around, was ulterior. Hobbes, after all, wrote in favour of absolute tyrants.

True, and as you correctly surmise I am in fact arguing the Lockean position. I have a rather low opinion of Rousseau for reasons that aren't relevant here.

Nevertheless, academic ramblings aside, I do agree with the concept that society has the duty of finding what I like to call optimal balance, there is, the least degree of cohercion in which it is able to properly function.

So far, we agree.

Now, what does such functionality is vary, but, again evoking our previous debate, I think the validity of a social body is determined by the universality of it’s goals,

And again, some shades of our previous debate...Where I question your argument is the "universality of goals" principle. It appears to me to be in conflict with the "least coercion" principle, since some societies have held goals implying a high degree of coercion. Wars of religion anybody?

The reason for that, however, I don’t necessarily link to the construct itself. Unlike capitalism, which developed from natural conditions, the collectivist governments/economic models were willfully installed. It’s typical of the intelligentsia to believe they can re-think society, stablish a rupture and than build paradise earth from scratch. Only that both society and economy are way too complex to work based on a cisma and by following somebody’s diagram – this being the reason for the deterioration of the concepts of justice and equality which were the core ideals behind the very conceptalization of communism.

But I would argue that this absence of design is the very essence of capitalism. What is the fundamental capitalist value? Freedom of contract. What is freedom of contract? The ability of two parties to make agreements without reference to the ideas of third parties without a personal interest in the issue.

Yes and no. That is the utopical construct of the theory, that ignores that such agreements are not made between equals, but between people in dominant and dominated positions, and that the social built, which is millenia old and can’t be helped by the individuals, places them arbitrarily in these positions.

The point remains that X is not responsible for Y. He did not create society.

This is what is most silly when debates are held with capitalist idealogues – they fail to perceive that reality is not that simple. One could argue, and not entirely deprived of reason, that contracts are invalid if a part accepts a disadvantageous position due to necessity. Their will was not free, but coherced by the system.

"Necessity" and "coercion" are separate ideas. The contract is only coercive if X is the one creating the necessity and if this creation is done without Y's consent in a matter on which Y had a right to be consulted. If I burn the crops in your country and force you to work for me to be fed, then I am coercing you. If you happen to be hungry because the crops failed in your country, then I am not responsible for the crop failure and am not coercing you.

The school of thought behind all collectivism is not aimed at damaging the rich, as some seen to think, but at leveling the starting condition – letting everyone shine by their individual merit, not by advantages conceded by accident of birth. Of course it encompasses more, specially limiting the profit to be an exact reflection of one’s true ability (supressing monstrous fortunes as some in the current world), but this is, to keep with your terms, a minor premisse.

I used the terms "minor premise" and "major premise" to show that I was constructing a syllogism:

Major premise: Coercion is bad
Minor premise: Communism is coercion
Conclusion: Communism is bad

More broadly, I would argue that the idea that a third party has the right to determine an "appropriate" reward for a transaction is coercive. No person can know the "appropriate" reward except those personally involved.

This is where our doctrines seen to differ. Passive behavior can be equally cohercitive – usually, even criminal law of even the most capitalist countries will recognize that, and penalize “criminal negligence”, in cases such as a pregnant woman who does not bother with seeing a doctor, or a parent who don’t take an ill kid to a doctor, or someone who witness somebody else’s heart attack and don’t do so much as calling an ambulance. Remember – hunger is as abrasive as the whip.

Perhaps "passive" is not the best term. As I said earlier, hunger is only coercive in the sense of one person coercing another if one of the parties to the transaction created the hunger.

What brings me to my final point here. Remember the subject in discussion – wheter or not the level of cohercion in capitalism is as against human nature as the one in communism (only more easily implemented). Lemme take advantage of your example:

You, as a rich man, cannot be forced to help me, a starving beggar, correct? But I, the starving beggar, cannot kill you to steal your possessions to end my starvation. And why I can’t? Because I’m also submitted to the rules of society, that criminalize such behavior.

But – remember the social contract – the reason why I’m bound to the rules of society is because I want to share it’s protection. In modern world, society is failing at this goal, because it’s allowing a systemic disadvantage of people who are born poor and have to face insurmontable odds to success, while others are born rich, and breeze through life. It is, effectively, creating and enforcing a systemic difference between people, hence protecting some at expense of others, the anti-thesis of it’s goal. This, in many levels, makes the submission of one, in misery, to the rules that prevent him/her from stealing, tyranny instead of legitimate ruling.

The reason why you cannot steal from me is that I have not acquiesced in the transaction. Your point seems to be that societal rules are only legitimate if they benefit all. Rather, I would argue that societal rules are only legitimate if they prevent the coercion of X by Y, since that is the reason why people live in societies (back to Locke again).

Now, I’m not advocating anarchy, but at the same time I refuse the Aristotelic obedience model – abide to the rules even if it means your death (what would again place the individual be second to the prince's commands).

So did Locke, although he was primarily concerned with refuting similar views expressed by Filmer.

In order to society to validly expect the underprivilege to abide to the norm (I say validly because it can froce it invalidly, but that is another story), it must at least be acting to end, or minimize, the differences it has previously enforced – and it is in this manner that yes, someone – the social body – is responsible for adressing my famine, even if no one, individually, has that duty.

Again, the supposition here is that all must benefit for a society to be legitimate. I would argue that, on the whole, this is broadly the case under capitalism, but we're debating theory here, so I will simply comment that I believe the responsibility of society to be the upholding of "freedom of contract" broadly defined - i.e. the ability of X to negotiate with Y, or indeed to choose not to do so, on grounds defined entirely by X and Y.

I entirely agree that welfare is not communism/socialism (no matter how many people like to paint it as so). I see it as a sign that modern society achnowledge it’s role and try to fulfill it through such resdistribution. There are problems with this approach, because it is forceful, not systemic. It creates a flowing of wealthy that is unjustified by the mechanics of the economic model adopted, and it also encourage leechs to suck on the tits of state instead of working.

I think, actually, that the last-named problem can possibly be largely resolved. I posted a thread here a while ago about a concept called negative income tax, which would mitigate if not resolve the problem of incentives by insuring that individuals would always take home more if they earned more. You will notice that I am being entirely inconsistent here - outlining a system for mitigating "injustice" while denying that it exists. The reason is that my gut feeling (which tells me that civilization should not allow a person to starve) is in conflict with my intellect (which tells me that all government action is necessarily coercive, or it would be unnecessary).

To end on a more positive note: Thank you for rescuing this thread from the flame-fest it was becoming.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Wow...Singapore is definitely not a democratic country relative to the U.S. In fact it is a one party system with only 2 opposition members in the parliament. Many relevant opposition were incarcerated in jail or the psychiatric ward, driven to suicide, accused of being communist and exiled, in the persent days, they are being sued into bankruptcy, accused of being criminals and investigated by the police(which is death poliically). Forced to sign documents pledging never to contest in any election under threat of more lawsuits. Unfair laws being implemented to prevent opposition into contesting in elections.

Singapore is not a democratic country, by any normal definition. When that old man sitting on the throne dies, we will see how much of the rotten stuff comes to the surface, but Singapore is not a democratic country although it is very capitalistic.

Sorry if my singapor reference was wrong, it was just the first capitalist country that cam too mind. I will replace it with the U.K.

 

[FredLC]

I agree, on the whole, that the "human nature" argument is not the best argument for capitalism.

(…)

True, and as you correctly surmise I am in fact arguing the Lockean position. I have a rather low opinion of Rousseau for reasons that aren't relevant here.

(…)

So far, we agree.

No comments on these parts, since you have not challenged anything.

And again, some shades of our previous debate...Where I question your argument is the "universality of goals" principle. It appears to me to be in conflict with the "least coercion" principle, since some societies have held goals implying a high degree of coercion. Wars of religion anybody?

Yes, yes, it IS a conflict. Society tries to balance two conflicting tendencies – the individuality and the collectivity. This is why society is so complex. It is hard to define where should collectivism and where should individuality prevail.

Still, I feel you do not entirely grasp the true nature of the difficulty in question. Remember the reply I gave in our previous chat, the one which remained unanswered? There is no universality when the adopted posture aims at harming a part of the society instead of helping it. The majority ideal – even a large, 99% majority, isn’t an universality, but a group – and this is what defies the example you gave back then (Nazis pursuing jews) and the one you give now (religious wars) – in both cases, there is a clash of foes within society, not an legislature of integration.

Please notice that a universal goal does not necessarily please everyone, nor even benefit everyone. The quality that makes it universal is not it’s popularity, but it’s impartiality – the intention to address an issue regardless of personal preferences, that afflicts the social body or part of it, in the interest of th whole.

Lemme exemplify: Your countrie’s constitution stablishes: “All are equal in the eyes of the law”. This ruling is aimed at pursuing a philosophy of how a society should work for it to become as good a society as possible. This, however, would not please those who defend inequality for one reason or another, and would effectively harm the beneficiaries of any inequality stablished previously to this ruling, which would, obviously, loose their privileges. Still, this rule does not intend to harm the previous “nobility”, just to adequate the social body, legitimating it’s ruling. Quite different than if it had set that it wants to destroy nobility or make it inferior, which would be sectorial (hence invalid) rulings.

The notion of universality, which I adopt as criteria, is simple and axiomatic – no man is inherent superior to other – so all join society in equal conditions, and is entitled equal defense from societal resources. Any policy aimed at enforcing this is valid; any aimed at negating this, invalid. It is the defense of an universal interest because it deals with basic human necessities which does not vary regardless differences in groups (we all want to live, we all want health, we all want to prosper, etc…). Simple as that.

But I would argue that this absence of design is the very essence of capitalism. What is the fundamental capitalist value? Freedom of contract. What is freedom of contract? The ability of two parties to make agreements without reference to the ideas of third parties without a personal interest in the issue.

And this is one of the core points of our argument. You don’t see design in capitalism? You are wrong. As I said in my first post, just try to remove force from the equation – remove punishments for stealing or disrespecting contracts, and see how well it will flow. But there is more to it.

Convergence of wills is a trait of free trade (not necessarily capitslism; see, for example, the mercantilist model).

Above all, however, is the fact that contracts are not free even in the most capitalistic society. For example, there is no validity in a contract in which I offer you to pay you one million dollars if you kill yourself, or you chop off your testicles with an axe. Should you decide not to complete your task, I can’t require the power of cohercion of society t force you to comply – the public interest does manage the content of what can be contracted, and does not accept such abusive clause, which will cause an obvious objective harm.

In Brazilian contractual system, and I’d say probably also in most of the western world, if I come across Bill Gates drowning in quicksand, and force him to sign a contract – I save his live, in exchange he gives me his fortune – this contract will be ruled void by any judge because Gates’ will, in a direct state of necessity, was imbebbed in vice – and this even if I was not the one to throuw him there or point him that direction.

Contracts are also invalid if the person is unaware due to alcohol, drugs and mental healthy conditions. There are several reasons and manners by which someone can disqualify his/her own signature, demonstrating that some internal or external factor that could not be helped forced him/her to accept an obviously disadvantageous condition he/she would never take in a situation of equality.

For economical and historical conditions, however, it was detached from the mentality and doctrine of contractualism that social condition can be a factor of the sort. However, there is no reason why it can’t, and it becomes a very valid and interesting philosophical/sociological debate (though I agree, without place in economical theory – it would demand a social revision of a more fundamental nature). Please note that I’m not saying that all contracts in which one part makes more profit than the wother are invalid; I’m just saying that sitting back and taking advantage of one’s tragedy is not the immaculate unquestionable behavior of the ephistemology you are defending.

Note, again, that society was (is) part of the series of circunstances that placed the two contractors in different conditions. A large part of it, in fact, in most cases – what brings me to the next quotation right below:

The point remains that X is not responsible for Y. He did not create society.

Indeed, no one personally created the society, and, normally, no villain is responsible for a person’s misery. No, the force that pushes people downhill is not something so tangible, so visible. It’s systemic, and because of it, that more certain and that more lacking of compassion. The point where your retort becomes impertinent to my argument, hence, is that I never called for heroes; I never said that an individual should take one for the team, assume the guilty and pay for it – The approach I’m defending is that society, the same encompassing presence which creates the pressure leading to poverty, should respond to that presure and help people not to get poor. The wealthy members of society pay for that, like also does, in proportion to their respectives wealthy levels, everybody else – as financers of a vision, of a program – not as white knights personally responsible.

X is not responsible for Y, true; But I’m not talking to X; I’m talking with the whole alphabet.

"Necessity" and "coercion" are separate ideas. The contract is only coercive if X is the one creating the necessity and if this creation is done without Y's consent in a matter on which Y had a right to be consulted. If I burn the crops in your country and force you to work for me to be fed, then I am coercing you. If you happen to be hungry because the crops failed in your country, then I am not responsible for the crop failure and am not coercing you.

I’ll not enter a debate of definitions. Necessity and coercion are separate ideas, true (what does not, in any way, prevent necessity from being coercitive). But you want a dissociation, fine. My argument remains that taking advantage of a necessity can be as reprovable as an engineered cohercion; In the issues we debate now, that is even truer, because the mechanics of our society automatically creates differences between people arbitrarily, by accident of birth.

Many ny people see that, and that is why so many people feel inclined to push society into amending this idiossincrasy.

I used the terms "minor premise" and "major premise" to show that I was constructing a syllogism:

Major premise: Coercion is bad
Minor premise: Communism is coercion
Conclusion: Communism is bad

More broadly, I would argue that the idea that a third party has the right to determine an "appropriate" reward for a transaction is coercive. No person can know the "appropriate" reward except those personally involved.

Obviously, I disagree with your second premisse – but debating that would be off-topic, a discussion of what communism is. I’ll settle that what comunism have been so far is coercion, hence bad.

As for the last paragraph, I have held this very debate here before – I happen to agree with the idea that things do not have objective values, hence they can’t be measured. But this seen to be an argument against statism, something I did not defend here. I don’t agree with all the ideas of all collectivist thinkers.

One thing I gotta say, though (and recovering again an idea from a text of mine you’ve read) – there is something wrong with the channels welathy flow in soceity. Bill Gates is certainly a rather capable man, and a great enterpriser, but no single man can alone generate that much wealthy – he is benefiting from wealthy generated by others, channeled to him by the good use he made of our imperfect economical superstructure.

I’ll not debate weather his fortune is unfair or fair; due to the very difficulty you pointed out here, no one can in fact propose a system which is inherently fairer, making that debate pointless. But I feel that a idiossincrasy, a “unfairness”, is identified when a man is rewarded with million times the contribution he can personally perform. And a system where a third party attribbs values for transactions of others (mind, again, a system I don’t advocate), is not “more unfair” than what is happening – it is just different (and, apparently, less effective in enhancing social wealthy).

Perhaps "passive" is not the best term. As I said earlier, hunger is only coercive in the sense of one person coercing another if one of the parties to the transaction created the hunger.

And, as I said, I disagree with that notion. Hunger is coercitive, it will force people to do things they don’t want, even if it is a blind tragedy that can’t be blamed on anyone. And someone taking advantage of that deserves criticism to say the least, and perhaps deserves more than that – an extra something, however, we aren’t equipped to provide.

The reason why you cannot steal from me is that I have not acquiesced in the transaction. Your point seems to be that societal rules are only legitimate if they benefit all. Rather, I would argue that societal rules are only legitimate if they prevent the coercion of X by Y, since that is the reason why people live in societies (back to Locke again).

Your view here is quite… unusual. Should you have aquiesced, that would not be stealing at all – Stealing is, by definition, taking something against the will of the legitimate owner.

Your aquiescence is irrelevant. Stealing is an ilegitimate form of acquiring property anyway. But ilegitimate as it may be, it is very real, and very functional. That you feel indignified when it happens is also irrelevant – if the cook cared about your feelings, he would not have stolen from you in the first place.

No – what forces the unwilling to observe and respect the legitimate linkage between a subject and a object is not the lack of authorization – it is the social repression. Society says “break my norm, and I’ll punish you” – and than, people don’t break the norm.

Again, this is a universal ruling. See, the thieve also has property – and the same ruling that legitimates you to resist to his advances and required punishment of him if he completes the act, also protects him from advances of others. It is a philosophy of common interest on how the economical matters of society must function. But, casuistically, it can be against my insterest (whe I am the one who wants to take something from somebody) or for my interest (when somebody wants to take something that is mine).

Your argument here, and please notice that I mention this benevolently, is naïve. Like the invisible hand, or the expectancy of communists that people will work without rewards, to imagine that “people will not steal because they don’t have the right without my acquiescence” is utopy. The rule of society, not your will, is the factor of relevance.

What makes my point – the thieve only has the duty to obey the rule of society if he is encompassed by it’s protection, if he has, to use again hobbesian terms, “given up his absolute freedon in exchange of a systemic freedon, that is smaller but effective”, and that only happens, in the form of my above description, when society seeks for all those equal people an equal chance.

To clear up a possible misunderstanding from anyone following here, I add that I’m not saying that crooks aren’t responsible for their actions, or that they aren’t deserving punishment. I’m just saying that the philosophical foundations of the society we live in are not being respected. Due to the fact that the only operational economical theory we have encourages inequality, we are forced to have a system that accepts it, that flourishes on it – and that is a true humane tragedy.

Only when all have the same chance in life, all wealthy will be fair, and all poverty will be deserved. We are not there yet. Not by lightyears.

So did Locke, although he was primarily concerned with refuting similar views expressed by Filmer.

I’m not aware of the Locke/Filmer controversy, and, because of that, I can’t comment anything here.

Again, the supposition here is that all must benefit for a society to be legitimate. I would argue that, on the whole, this is broadly the case under capitalism, but we're debating theory here, so I will simply comment that I believe the responsibility of society to be the upholding of "freedom of contract" broadly defined - i.e. the ability of X to negotiate with Y, or indeed to choose not to do so, on grounds defined entirely by X and Y.

I’d say that it would only be an ideal setting if society gratned that Y and X had the same start, or at least minimized differences so that volition and interest, not urgent necessity, became the drive of both parts. Today, much of the free contracting that happens is only free in a reductive definition of freedom – that which despict only coercion, and not necessity – to keep with your chosen terms.

I think, actually, that the last-named problem can possibly be largely resolved. I posted a thread here a while ago about a concept called negative income tax, which would mitigate if not resolve the problem of incentives by insuring that individuals would always take home more if they earned more. You will notice that I am being entirely inconsistent here - outlining a system for mitigating "injustice" while denying that it exists. The reason is that my gut feeling (which tells me that civilization should not allow a person to starve) is in conflict with my intellect (which tells me that all government action is necessarily coercive, or it would be unnecessary).

No debate necessary here. However, please do provide a link to your proposal. It’s always interesting to see new approaches to end the misery in our little earth.

To end on a more positive note: Thank you for rescuing this thread from the flame-fest it was becoming.

This is my gift. This is my course [/spiderman responsibility rant mode].

Regards .

 

[Archbob]

No, see, all human nature does is to guide our instincts to do the best we can to ensure each individual's own prosperity. Thats is to gain prominenance and ensure reproduction and passing on of our genes. In most animals(and of course our own), males will fight or compete for dominance(not of females but of status and territory). As odd as that might sound for a civilized race like humans, it still holds true. Unfortunately these instincts lean much more towards capitalism than communism.

Read the 1960's naturalist book "African Genesis". I knows its a bit outdated now, but nontheless an interesting read.

 

[FredLC]

Yeah, that social darwinism is a most common argument raised. But it only holds true when the individual don't perceive that the collectiveness in his best individual interest - when a due collectiveness would be(though not necessarily organized in communism).

Many works recognize that we voluntarily concede prorrogatives to groups in pursuit of our own interest. Even "the egoist gene" - the epithome of the mentality of "All I care is about myself", for it argues that even parental love is in the end an egoistic desire to preserve one's own genes, admits that.

The issue, for me, gets down to this: The best environment conceivable would be one where all people in the world work in enthusiastic unissonous for the best of all people. This would be an environemnt without corruption or waste. This would generate the most well-being humanly possible. This, however, can't be done, for this system does not bring a direct feeling of benefit, nothing to '"sink your teeth in".

I wonder, however, will it one day be possible to make the gains of union be more tangible? If so, than perhaps your argument will be reversed.

Regards .

 

[Rik Meleet]

Does that mean that in a sociey that punishes selfishness the end-result will be better (theoretically) than in a society that rewards selfishness (like Capitalism) ???

 

[FredLC]

No, just that selfshiness can, perhaps, be better served, and rewarded, by cooperation than by competition.

Rather than punishing, this is just reassessing the approach.

"United we prevail, separated we fall"

Regards .

 

[Lord Malbeth]

I tend to lean anti-Communism (as a government that is). Personally I think Communism in theory was a great idea. I mean hey! Everybody shares, everybody gets an equal share! Heck that sounds like heaven. The problem is that most governments don't have that kinda money! I saw a documentary on the USSR and it said people were starvin' to death. Now I'm not saying that all communist countries are like the USSR, but communism really only works in very, very small communities (such as Native American tribes).

Most countries that switched to communism have collapsed, correction, actually almost all of them:

USSR - Gone
Yugoslavia - Gone
Czechslovakia - Gone
Poland - Gone
East Germany - Gone
(All the other USSR influenced countries)
China - switching towards capitalism
North Korea - slowy declining (but not gone)
Vietnam - declining
Cuba - slowy declining (but not gone)

Ya see what I'm saying!

(Oh and, yes most of them were influenced by the USSR, but that's what communism does. And also communism hurt those countries! )

Remember, just my opinion.

 

[allhailIndia]

Hehehe. Allhailindia, I don't think this is very correct. In theory, there would not be "stealing"; what would be is just the extinction of the concept of "private property". This channeling of resources could, theoretically, be "made sure to be used properly", and the political circunstances that prevented it are not inherent of the model. I guess we could say that communism is just a rather large form of tributation, to keep with your example.

The problem of implementation is very real, but it is practical, not theoretical.

I don't think there is any theory which says that your toothbrush is not your private property

I don't even think communism did away with ALL notions of private property.

As a lawyer, you may have studied 'law and economics', but for those unaware, it is a fast developing study of law which looks at the function performed by law in the economic lives of people and tries to explain why some laws work, why some don't and where it should and should not be present. One of the concepts of law and economics is that of 'transaction costs' which is basically the cost incurred in actually undertaking a transaction, e.g., lawyers fees in drawing up a contract, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_costs. This theoretical perfect redistribution cannot happen because of the transaction costs involved in actually making such distribution which are part of human nature. Communism as a theory, and even when put into practice, albeit imperfectly, does not take human nature into account.

 

[Shaihulud]

Sorry if my singapor reference was wrong, it was just the first capitalist country that cam too mind. I will replace it with the U.K.

It is understandable, there are some false conceptions that a capitalist country must necessarily be a democratic one. I will not like to define Singapores political system, but it is in no way a democratic one, it is propably fair to say that the system of ruling that China is trying to build is propably modelled roughly on Singapore. i wouldn't be so sure that Vietnam is declining, they are doing better than they have ever been. Poor by standards of the first world perhaps, but they have never really been that fortunate as a Country... The things is that many of the Countries that had a sucessful communist revolution, they never had a really great living standard anyway and the prior existing government were not exempleries of clean democratic standards. Examples such as Chiang Kai Shek, Tsar Nicholas II or the French colonist unerscore the point.There might even be a slight improvement to the living standard after the revolution, or at least that was the impression i recieved from the Chinese who lived during the revolution.

 

[JerichoHill]

No, just that selfshiness can, perhaps, be better served, and rewarded, by cooperation than by competition.

Regards .

This is flatly incorrect, for the following reason.

Man is selfish. This is part of our nature, because Man has wants as well as needs. The wants create our selfishness

By pitting selfishness against selfishness, capitalism attempts to turn a bad into a good

 

[ibn sina]

Me, and my Fellow Right-Wing Conservatives. You should not rob the rich and give to the poor like Robin Hood, that means that the rich have no rights.

Just wanna point out that Robin Hood is a libertarian hero as he stole tax money from the government and gave it back to their rightful owners.

 

[FredLC]

This is flatly incorrect, for the following reason.

Man is selfish. This is part of our nature, because Man has wants as well as needs. The wants create our selfishness

By pitting selfishness against selfishness, capitalism attempts to turn a bad into a good

This is the discourse, but think about it twice:

How many people actually want to end society and it's constrictions? How many people actually choose to step out of society and be eremites, an environment where all selfish desires are granted? Very few - a number, possibly, smaller than that of those who are selfless even in society.

This, because living in society provides benefits that goes beyond those of loneliness. There is a HUGE amount of colectiveness that is undisputed even in the most capitalistic of environments. The true debate is about taking or not anothger step in that direction, and change the depth of that aspect.

I submit, than, that collectiveness of a very real degree (of course, motivated by self-interest) is as relevant and real as the selfish impulse; it is, in fact, a development of it.

My point of contemption here, hence, isn't that main isn't selfish; just that the way our nature is handled, maybe, can be amended and turned even more constructive than today (what, again to cleare up, is just a divagation).

Have you been read the debate so far? You have just, again, argued the "capitalism is for the human nature" discourse, and it has been beaten quite severily so far; please, do take a look in the talks between me and atrops for the last two or three pages.

Regards .

PS.: AllHailIndia, I'm from an inconvenient spot now; when I get back my broadband connection, I'll try address your remarks.

 

[Atropos]

Yes, yes, it IS a conflict. Society tries to balance two conflicting tendencies – the individuality and the collectivity. This is why society is so complex. It is hard to define where should collectivism and where should individuality prevail.

I would disagree with that. I've never actually met a collectivity, although I've met plenty of individuals. All societal/governmental actions actually come down to their effects on specific individuals.

Still, I feel you do not entirely grasp the true nature of the difficulty in question. Remember the reply I gave in our previous chat, the one which remained unanswered? There is no universality when the adopted posture aims at harming a part of the society instead of helping it. The majority ideal – even a large, 99% majority, isn’t an universality, but a group – and this is what defies the example you gave back then (Nazis pursuing jews) and the one you give now (religious wars) – in both cases, there is a clash of foes within society, not an legislature of integration.

Please notice that a universal goal does not necessarily please everyone, nor even benefit everyone. The quality that makes it universal is not it’s popularity, but it’s impartiality – the intention to address an issue regardless of personal preferences, that afflicts the social body or part of it, in the interest of th whole.

Lemme exemplify: Your countrie’s constitution stablishes: “All are equal in the eyes of the law”. This ruling is aimed at pursuing a philosophy of how a society should work for it to become as good a society as possible. This, however, would not please those who defend inequality for one reason or another, and would effectively harm the beneficiaries of any inequality stablished previously to this ruling, which would, obviously, loose their privileges. Still, this rule does not intend to harm the previous “nobility”, just to adequate the social body, legitimating it’s ruling. Quite different than if it had set that it wants to destroy nobility or make it inferior, which would be sectorial (hence invalid) rulings.

I think I've met this argument before...just can't remember the person who first advocated it. The problem is that, in practice, decisions are not made that way. You cite the US Constitution; very well, who designed it? Elected officials. There are only so many ways to draft laws/ constitutions/ whatever, and the question remains: who gets to decide if the law is in fact universal? Let's say I want to pass a law saying "Murder is bad." Affects everyone equally, right? Right - but how do I pass it? By a majority or, worse, a dictatorship. That same majority can decide that the law "Kill all heretics" is universal by your definition - after all, just as laws against murder won't affect you unless you actually kill someone, laws against heretics won't affect you unless you practise heresy. Maybe that's wrong by your definition, and you can show me why. But it doesn't matter, because your definition is not binding unless the majority / powerful members of society say it is, which brings me to the next point.

The notion of universality, which I adopt as criteria, is simple and axiomatic – no man is inherent superior to other

But it is not simple and it is not axiomatic. It is a product of the Enlightenment and will be rejected by societies who do not share Enlightenment values. I agree with it, absolutely. But I cannot speak for the whole of humanity, past, present, and future, and nor can you, and nor can anyone else - which is precisely what all general rules defining "just laws" seek to do, since they pretend to be binding on all in all situations. That is why I advocate a situation in which the role of government is limited to prevented harm inflicted by one individual (or group thereof) upon another. That, as you correctly argue, is also a societal construct because of the problem of "duress" - under what circumstance does the basic assumption behind these transactions, i.e. that both parties are rational beings making decisions which are not compelled, break down? It breaks down, pretty obviously, for children, madmen and so on, because of the rationality criterion. This can be a problem - for a long time women and non-whites were defined as irrational - but it can ultimately be overcome by empirical methods (are you rational enough to take this IQ test?) It's the other criterion - compulsion - that is weaker and on which you focus most of your argument. I'll return to it later.

– so all join society in equal conditions, and is entitled equal defense from societal resources. Any policy aimed at enforcing this is valid; any aimed at negating this, invalid. It is the defense of an universal interest because it deals with basic human necessities which does not vary regardless differences in groups (we all want to live, we all want health, we all want to prosper, etc&#8230. Simple as that.

We all want to be saved from the eternal fires of hell, if we're living in the fourteenth century in Europe and atheism is not even comprehensible to us... Who defines what "everyone" wants? Because someone must if actual action is to be taken on any point. The opinion of the majority doesn't work, and the opinion of the minority definitely doesn't work, so - who decides?

And this is one of the core points of our argument. You don’t see design in capitalism? You are wrong. As I said in my first post, just try to remove force from the equation – remove punishments for stealing or disrespecting contracts, and see how well it will flow. But there is more to it.

The thing is, though, these laws are not randomly chosen. They are the minimum necessary laws to prevent one individual from causing physical harm (theft, since it injures material comfort, is also physical harm) to another. It's not great that society has to bind its members by ANY laws. They are all societal, and any rules invented to justify them, such as your criterion of universality, are also societal. This is partly because the justifying rules issue from society (your argument would not even have been comprehensible to someone living in the twelfth century AD), and partly because societies implement them (what in practise is a universal law?) The rules you list are the bare minimum to defend which society was originally constituted. I defend them not because they are just, but because you can't have fewer laws without a total breakdown, and more laws, since all laws are societal in origin (i.e. coerce those who do not agree with that societal judgement), are worse.

Convergence of wills is a trait of free trade (not necessarily capitslism; see, for example, the mercantilist model).

The mercantilist model wasn't particularly capitalist, as the word is usually used today. But let's say I'm defending a variant of capitalism.

Above all, however, is the fact that contracts are not free even in the most capitalistic society.

Of course not. But they are as free as possible, as good (uncoercive) as you can get in practise.

For example, there is no validity in a contract in which I offer you to pay you one million dollars if you kill yourself, or you chop off your testicles with an axe.

In which society? In ancient Greece, some doctors demanded their poorest clients as slaves in exchange for treatment. In modern societies, however, the idea of "inalienable rights" has developed - a rather uncomfortable hangover from the religious ban on suicide.

Should you decide not to complete your task, I can’t require the power of cohercion of society t force you to comply – the public interest does manage the content of what can be contracted, and does not accept such abusive clause, which will cause an obvious objective harm.

Because if you sign, you're insane, and if you're insane, you're not rational, and if you're not rational, you can't sign agreements...

In Brazilian contractual system, and I’d say probably also in most of the western world, if I come across Bill Gates drowning in quicksand, and force him to sign a contract – I save his live, in exchange he gives me his fortune – this contract will be ruled void by any judge because Gates’ will, in a direct state of necessity, was imbebbed in vice – and this even if I was not the one to throuw him there or point him that direction.

The problem of "duress," as I said. Most famous case: Harold is shipwrecked on the Norman coast. William, duke of Normandy, forces him to sign away his rights to the English crown. Is it valid? No, but that's an easier case (harm caused by person demanding agreement = blackmail). The question is: In what circumstances does the rational choice principle inspiring freedom of contract conflict with itself? (Where it conflicts with itself, it's obviously invalid and the contract can be annulled). Does it conflict with itself in any case of physical necessity? I'd argue - only if it actually impairs capacity to decide. In this case, there is no opportunity to seek alternative sources of lifelines - you are a monopolist, and that's a classic exception to freedom of contract, since there is no real "freedom of choice" with a monopoly supplier. It's a bit different if, say, a company sets up a plant in a starving country and offers work for very low wages. The company may technically be a monopolist (to the extent that no alternative sources of work are available - and it's very rarely the case that NO alternative is available, however bad it may be), but it's not a monopolist because, to pursue your analogy, there's no one else on the edge of the pool where Bill Gates is drowning - it's a monopolist because no one else will dive in (no other company chooses to invest) - so the analogy doesn't really work.

In any event, monopolies are a bit of an exception - that's why they're regulated. If you've cornered the world supply of grain, then you can legitimitely be forced to give other people some. But that's not likely to happen.

Contracts are also invalid if the person is unaware due to alcohol, drugs and mental healthy conditions.

Easy exceptions (reason impaired - no "contract" possible any more than a child can give consent for purposes of marriage).

For economical and historical conditions, however, it was detached from the mentality and doctrine of contractualism that social condition can be a factor of the sort. However, there is no reason why it can’t, and it becomes a very valid and interesting philosophical/sociological debate (though I agree, without place in economical theory – it would demand a social revision of a more fundamental nature). Please note that I’m not saying that all contracts in which one part makes more profit than the wother are invalid; I’m just saying that sitting back and taking advantage of one’s tragedy is not the immaculate unquestionable behavior of the ephistemology you are defending.

Social condition is not part of the

bare minimum

needed to ensure that freedom of contract can work in practise. "I'm mad" - easy exception. "He was holding a gun to my head" - easy exception. "I was hungry" - well, you could equally argue that your genes would die out if you hadn't raped that woman. (This might seem a bit of a stretch, but most of those who argue in favour of the idea that the mere fact of being in the world gives you some kind of claim on others to be fed also argue for an indefeasible right to some kind of comfort or other, and sex is definitely harder to do without than a lot of things).

The question is not: "Is this a Just Exception as I define it?" because others WILL define it differently, and there is no ultimate arbiter. The question is: "Would the whole system break down completely if this exception were not allowed?"

Indeed, no one personally created the society, and, normally, no villain is responsible for a person’s misery. No, the force that pushes people downhill is not something so tangible, so visible. It’s systemic, and because of it, that more certain and that more lacking of compassion. The point where your retort becomes impertinent to my argument, hence, is that I never called for heroes; I never said that an individual should take one for the team, assume the guilty and pay for it – The approach I’m defending is that society, the same encompassing presence which creates the pressure leading to poverty, should respond to that presure and help people not to get poor.

By taxing individuals. "Society" never bought anyone lunch.

The wealthy members of society pay for that, like also does, in proportion to their respectives wealthy levels, everybody else – as financers of a vision, of a program – not as white knights personally responsible.

A programme with which they might quite possibly disagree. And what right do you have to coerce them, if they have done nothing wrong? Only, I would suggest, if you can argue that the whole framework on which they have built would necessarily collapse in the absence of the measure demanded.

X is not responsible for Y, true; But I’m not talking to X; I’m talking with the whole alphabet.

Does the whole alphabet have a common opinion? If not, whose opinion is imposed?

I’ll not enter a debate of definitions. Necessity and coercion are separate ideas, true (what does not, in any way, prevent necessity from being coercitive). But you want a dissociation, fine. My argument remains that taking advantage of a necessity can be as reprovable as an engineered cohercion; In the issues we debate now, that is even truer, because the mechanics of our society automatically creates differences between people arbitrarily, by accident of birth.

Now this part is interesting, and I don't altogether disagree with you. The idea of free choice is certainly undermined by differing starting points. The problem is: How do you do away with that? Some are stronger than others, or have particular talents, and you can't take them away, so the initial playing field is never going to be level. Moreover, perfect equality of opportunity presupposes the abolition of inherited wealth. This is a major limitation on the freedom of action of the elderly. I would, however, view this as an excellent argument for universal schooling.

One thing I gotta say, though (and recovering again an idea from a text of mine you’ve read) – there is something wrong with the channels welathy flow in soceity. Bill Gates is certainly a rather capable man, and a great enterpriser, but no single man can alone generate that much wealthy – he is benefiting from wealthy generated by others, channeled to him by the good use he made of our imperfect economical superstructure.

I would disagree here, up to a point. Perhaps Bill Gates, as a monopolist, is an exception, but in general: Who are we to decide that "no single man can alone generate that much wealth?" Wealth isn't a static phenomenon - so many factories or windmills. It is, to give it its economic definition, a situation created when resources are moved from lower-valued to higher-valued ends - that is, it is the product of a subjective definition of value, with the definition coming from the users themselves. If people think that what Bill Gates does is worth paying X amount, then it's worth X amount - there is no "objective" measurement of what it is worth. What you have stated is simply the "argument from personal incredulity" (anti-evolutionist argument) applied to economics.

I’ll not debate weather his fortune is unfair or fair; due to the very difficulty you pointed out here, no one can in fact propose a system which is inherently fairer, making that debate pointless. But I feel that a idiossincrasy, a “unfairness”, is identified when a man is rewarded with million times the contribution he can personally perform.

See above - the contribution cannot be "objectively" valued.

And a system where a third party attribbs values for transactions of others (mind, again, a system I don’t advocate), is not “more unfair” than what is happening – it is just different (and, apparently, less effective in enhancing social wealthy).

I would argue that it is indeed more unfair unless third parties are affected. (Big exception BTW since it covers environmental damage, second-hand smoke etc). The third party is inherently incapable of deciding what is "fair" because "fairness" is subjective and can, thus, only be assessed by the parties involved. If they think it is fair, it is fair.

And, as I said, I disagree with that notion. Hunger is coercitive, it will force people to do things they don’t want, even if it is a blind tragedy that can’t be blamed on anyone. And someone taking advantage of that deserves criticism to say the least, and perhaps deserves more than that – an extra something, however, we aren’t equipped to provide.

See above.

Your view here is quite… unusual. Should you have aquiesced, that would not be stealing at all – Stealing is, by definition, taking something against the will of the legitimate owner.

You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that it is precisely the absence of my consent which defines stealing, i.e. which makes what would otherwise be a value-neutral act of taking illegitimate.

Your aquiescence is irrelevant. Stealing is an ilegitimate form of acquiring property anyway. But ilegitimate as it may be, it is very real, and very functional. That you feel indignified when it happens is also irrelevant – if the cook cared about your feelings, he would not have stolen from you in the first place.

It is relevant because it is what defines stealing...as you pointed out yourself...

No – what forces the unwilling to observe and respect the legitimate linkage between a subject and a object is not the lack of authorization – it is the social repression. Society says “break my norm, and I’ll punish you” – and than, people don’t break the norm.

So? I'm not arguing about why people do or don't steal. I am stating an argument for what makes theft illegitimate.

Again, this is a universal ruling. See, the thieve also has property – and the same ruling that legitimates you to resist to his advances and required punishment of him if he completes the act, also protects him from advances of others. It is a philosophy of common interest on how the economical matters of society must function. But, casuistically, it can be against my insterest (whe I am the one who wants to take something from somebody) or for my interest (when somebody wants to take something that is mine).

By this definition of the illegitimacy of stealing, a penniless thief is justified in his actions.

Your argument here, and please notice that I mention this benevolently, is naïve. Like the invisible hand, or the expectancy of communists that people will work without rewards, to imagine that “people will not steal because they don’t have the right without my acquiescence” is utopy. The rule of society, not your will, is the factor of relevance.

Huh? I never said anything of the sort. I said that people SHOULD not steal from me without my consent (which indeed is the definition of theft) - not that they WOULD not. My will is relevant because it is the reason why society has a responsibility to avenge me - the autonomy of the individual, which is what society was formed to protect, has been breached.

What makes my point – the thieve only has the duty to obey the rule of society if he is encompassed by it’s protection, if he has, to use again hobbesian terms, “given up his absolute freedon in exchange of a systemic freedon, that is smaller but effective”, and that only happens, in the form of my above description, when society seeks for all those equal people an equal chance.

The thief's responsibility stems from the fact that his rights end at the tip of my nose, so to speak. Up to that point, he has a right not to be coerced; beyond it, he is coercing others, so the objection against coercing him no longer holds.

To clear up a possible misunderstanding from anyone following here, I add that I’m not saying that crooks aren’t responsible for their actions, or that they aren’t deserving punishment. I’m just saying that the philosophical foundations of the society we live in are not being respected. Due to the fact that the only operational economical theory we have encourages inequality, we are forced to have a system that accepts it, that flourishes on it – and that is a true humane tragedy.

I would disagree that inequality of outcome is a tragedy in itself. As I said in the earlier thread, if everyone is a billionaire, who cares if some are trillionaires?

Only when all have the same chance in life, all wealthy will be fair, and all poverty will be deserved. We are not there yet. Not by lightyears.

See above. As I said, an interesting argument with important practical implications (notably for schooling).

No debate necessary here. However, please do provide a link to your proposal. It’s always interesting to see new approaches to end the misery in our little earth.

Wikipedia explains it better than I did.

 

[mdwh]

I believe communism to be a bad system - but that's my opinion of it as an economic system. It doesn't mean I think it, or its supporters, are evil. I am capable of understanding the difference between "communism", and "specific countries which happen to be communist".

All of the arguments put forward against communism do nothing to explain what the OP described about the stigma against communism that there appears to be. I'm in the UK, and the way we view it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the way some Americans view it - it confuses me, but I guess it's a hangover from the cold war where communism was equated with the enemy, and sadly people are unable to distinguish that from the idea of communism as an economic system.

I would note that the term "communist" is ambiguous, and can imply a support of a particular party rather than supporting the idea in general - maybe the reactions would be better if you instead explicitly stated something like "I think communism is a good system".

 

[mdwh]

People have the right to own their possesions, not have them taken by the government and redistributed. The entire idea is flawed.

I don't believe that the idea of Communism is an evil way to kill off this, this, and that. It kills off people's identities, wealth may seem like the root of evil to you, but to me wealth is the root of good.

Yes, this is why in America there are no taxes, and wealth is never redistributed in any way.

 

[mdwh]

Rightly so they should. In fact the mere idea of a California high school kid claiming to be communist is making all my local Chinese colleagues roll in laughter right now.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding - but why?

 

[Dann]

It's freaking California! Hollywood! L.A. ! Beverly Hills! Probably the epitome of liberal democracy and capitalism even within the US itself. What has this kid experienced, or seen of communism aside from books or other media? What makes him understand and admire it so much as to embrace it while living in an environment that's its exact opposite?